One of my customer’s team member had destroy the Hyper-V Cluster by mistake. He formatted the cluster nodes without evict them before doing that . The nodes of the clsuter used to be  part of old cluster that was destroyed by mistake.

I tried to build the nodes again from the scratch and Create new cluster, When I run the validation wizard I got this error:

Cluster disk with identifier (identifier) has a persistent reservation on it ,the disk might be part of other cluster. removing the disk from other validation set.

My SAN is HP EVA. The Cluster is not able to see any of my LUNS although I can see them from disk management and can’t create the cluster.

This error due to the fact that the LUNs still keeping the old identifiers from the old cluster, You have to use Cluster command line to clear the reservation by that command:

cluster.exe node %nodename% /clear:disknumber

Now everything should work fine and you can pass the validation wizard

Here are some of the commonl used Regular expressions for form validations.

For More information on Regular Expressions follow this link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998267.aspx

Last month I did a presentation at SDDN in Melbourne on RIA Services and it’s in built authentication and validation features.

The code is posted here:

<Sample Code>

.NET Ria Services Authentication and Validation Demo Code

</Sample Code>

The talk started off by running through the UserDTO object – under Services/DomainObjects. This object is exposed through the UserRegistrationService under /Services.

Next you’ll want to familiarise with the LoginManager in the Silverlight project (under Model/LoginManager.cs).

I then added some custom validation to the UserDTO object.

Next I created a UserValitator.shared.cs file under Services/DomainObjects and applied a metadata attribute to UserDTO to connect the two. .shared.cs files will be automatically made available to Silverlight by RIA Services.

The login stuff is built using the standard ASP.NET membership SQL provider, and the built in RIA Services abilities around this.

Read through LoginManager.cs see how the forms authentication object is created, and how the system uses the AuthenciationDomainContext, which is created on the sever in Services/DomainObjects. AuthenticationDomainService on the server contains the goods to validate a user and also provides a User class, which you can extend.

There is also a UserRegistration context in LoginManager which allows you to create a new user. See UserRegistrationService.cs on the server (under Services/DomainObjects) to see how this works (by using the MembershipHelper class).

See the Web.config to note how the system is configured to use the SQL connection, and in the membership section note that it is configured to use this same SQL connection.
You’ll need to configure your SQL database as well – to create the ASP.NET membership tables… run aspnet_regsql.exe (in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727) from an elevated prompt to start the wizard.

This should be enough to get you started.

BTW, there is some great doco on this in the .NET RIA Services PDF file…

Enjoy!

While I was enjoying reading the series of articles and discussions around the subject, some points of concern questions were crystallizing in my mind, and now I feel ready to join the discussion by asking them.

Part I – Overview

What’s it about?

In the nutshell (in my humble opinion), a dire need in terms separation was inspired by highly analytical nature of authors on the one side, and a serious misunderstanding of the subject (Software Testing) by business (and I mean Sr. Management and all kinds of recruiters here) on the other side.

Long time ago

Historically testing derived from debugging. Since programs that times didn’t have much of “User Interface”, testing was closely involving looking at the source code and tracing it. Once program functionalities were wrapped around with user interface, functional testing (“Black Box”) arose. With years, bad coding practices were identified, good coding practices were proven, and code testing (“White Box”) separated from debugging. In the mean time, functional testing was growing mature on its own, no longer requiring programming knowledge and skills, but indistinctly separating to functionality-oriented testing and defect-oriented testing.

Added 11/25/2009

“With years, bad coding practices were identified, good coding practices were proven”

Coding, i.e. creation of program code, could be done in a variety of ways, utilizing different logic and following different patterns.

Programming language (compiler or interpreter) looks after syntax but not the logic. Some logics may seem to be working but not for the all user scenarios. Some other logics work perfectly but they are hardly maintainable or they may impact other areas, security, for example.

 
Creation of code that is defect-prone, hardly maintainable, or may impose other issues is a bad coding practice.
Following coding standards and using right programming patterns is good coding practice.

Please refer to “Making Wrong Code Look Wrong” article by Joel Spolsky for detailed examples. 

Added 11/25/2009

“indistinctly separating to functionality-oriented testing and defect-oriented testing”

Functionality-oriented testing is not a new definition or type of testing but is about verification and validation testing types, like User Acceptance Testing and Business Acceptance Testing processes used in Waterfall software development model.

On the other hand, User Story Testing in Agile methodology, is also a process of verification of implemented functionalities, allowing to confirm that it works as expected.

Defect-oriented testing is an exploratory process targeting any unwanted (defective, inconsistent, unsafe, etc.) functionalities, side effects, any other behavior of an application. That involves “improper” interaction with the application-under-test (Negative Testing, Stress Testing, etc.), or putting the application-under-test into “improper” conditions (Disk Failure, Low Memory, Network Timeout, etc.), or “hacking” the application (Security Testing, DB Attacks, etc.).
“Improper” is quoted because it’s not a regular interaction way or environment state but most likely may accidentally happen or be created on purpose with harmful intensions and thus have to be tried.

New branches on a tree

Certain types of tests were impossible to conduct purely manually  sapiently, and they were called “non-functional” (load/performance testing, security testing, etc.). However, those tests are generally conducted NOT on development team’s side.
Certain testing activities (i.e. GUI and non-GUI interaction, data entry, verification, reporting, etc.) became possible to conduct with help of other programs, and this is how computer-aided testing appeared. In turn, it could be separated to manual sapient testing with help of a tool, and automatic test case execution by a tool.
Certain managers found out that when requirements are clearly documented, and the all possible “needed” test cases are created, test execution tasks do not require much of tough testing skills. Testing becomes simple data entry task which can be done by virtually anyone.

Automation of “Black Box” testing activities

Creation of automatically executable test cases requires programming skills; the more comprehensive tests are, the more powerful test automation framework should be, and the more skilled and experienced developer is required to create the framework. Note that it is still about testing activities automation with test results as an output, and the final judgment is still on human. Anyway, here’s how we got automated testers (obviously, oxymoron, but look how many positions are named so), and automation developers (ironically, hands-on testing skills very often are not considered mandatory, while they should be critical in automation skillset).

Automation of “White Box” testing activities

Apart from code reviews conducted by a human being, isolated pieces of code (functions, procedures) could be verified by calling and executing them. The core idea here that for a call with particular arguments a function is expected to return specified value. If the value is wrong then the test is failed. This is how automatic unit testing appeared. Once test rules were created (either manually by programmer or by using code-generator), tests could be run by a person without programming skills. Note that even if “right” result was returned by a function-under-test, it does not 100% guarantee that the functionality is always correct, or even the function will work the same way in production environment.

“Data entry testing”

Degradation of testing to data entry opens wide saving opportunities for business. Surprisingly, some managers also find it beneficial because they get more [junior] people to manage. All kinds of outsourcing perfectly fit here too, from summer students to off-shore companies. However, down this road company will face two types of critical issues. First of all, “data entry testing” is purely verification-oriented; except of trivial ones, defects won’t be revealed. Second, as automatic test execution requires final human judgment, “data entry testers” are incapable of qualified analysis and investigation of defects they may encounter. Outsourced teams require heavy coaching and support. As a result, either somebody has to do re-testing, or software product’s quality degrades. 

Why separate?

From a hiring perspective, job requirements for QA/testing positions are total mess. Irrelevant subjects are often thrown in, and mandatory skills are overlooked. Separation and, more importantly, clear description of the each role in testing world might help in getting higher quality candidates. That in turn will benefit teams with higher quality resources, and companies – with higher quality of testing.
Clear distinction will benefit professionals too. At the end, 10 years of “data entry testing” are not nearly equal to 1 year of sapient testing, and such experiences must be treated differently. 

Conclusion

I strongly support the initiative of distinction and clarification. However, looking on how it evolves so far I see that it becomes unclear itself. Certain subjects and concepts that are distinct by nature are now mixed up.

I hope my questions will be considered by authors. (I don’t put any obligation to reply, of course). 

Part II – Questions

1. Code Testing vs. Product Testing – why mixing up?

Any program code becomes a software product after the build. Before that happens, code modules and atomic functions also can be (and should be) tested. This phase of testing does not substitute Functional Testing in any manner. Code testing is not meant to be only function checks. Primarily, it is code review, which is purely sapient activity.
The original article, however, fully disregards the sapient part of code testing, and also sets code testing as opposite to functional testing. Why?

Added 11/25/2009

Testing vs. Checking, “Testing Is Not Quality Assurance, But Checking Might Be”

“Checking, when done by a programmer, is mostly a quality assurance practice. When an programmer writes code, he checks his work. He might do this by running it directly and observing the results, or observing the behaviour of the code under the debugger, but often he writes a set of routines that exercise the code and perform some assertions on it. We call these unit “tests”, but they’re really checks, since the idea is to confirm existing knowledge. In this context, finding new information would be considered a surprise, and typically an unpleasant one. A failing check prompts the programmer to change the code to make it work the way he expects. That’s the quality assurance angle: a programmer helps to assure the quality of his work by checking it.”

The whole chapter and the quoted block put label “checking” on programmer’s part of testing – the code testing. Since “checking” is posed as non-sapient, and code testing is checking only, does it mean programmers don’t do any sapient testing as opposite to software testers?

In fact, when a programmer writes code, he reviews every created block. Before code is checked-in to the code base it has to be reviewed.

In the article I see “compliant” examples were elaborated (e.g. Automated Unit Testing) but “non-compliant” (what about Pair Programming ?)  were omitted.

2. Why checking is a confirmation?

As per suggested definition, checking is rule-based, while the rule itself is comparison-based. It is also assumed that the comparison rule returns either “TRUE” or “FALSE”. But that’s not the end! Any verification (or checking) also needs to be validated. Validation is a context-specific rule, outside-of-the-box rule, which is applied with sapience.
Example: “Check if the door is open”. Both TRUE and FALSE could be VALID, depending on the context. Without validation, checking results are useless.

3. Why testing must be done only through exploration and investigation?

Any sapient investigation, broken down to atomic steps, involves obtaining actual results, defining or retrieving expected results, defining or retrieving a comparison rule, applying the rule, and finally validating the check performed, based on the context.

5. Testing programs do not create new rules. Testers do. Why didn’t you clearly state that? 

Added 11/25/2009

Regular computer programs may strictly follow the predefined rules, may come up with one of the predefined rules, even may build-up a new statement from the predefined blocks, but they do not learn and do not create.

The whole idea of “Testing vs. Checking” is in “Testing is a sapient activity”. Large part of the article is dedicated to proving of that with examples and logical chains. Did it have to be so complicated?  

Testing programs do not create new checking rules. Testers do.

What could be more sapient than the act of creation of something new?  

6. What is the value of testing if it doesn’t help improving the quality?

Added 11/25/2009

  

If a tester finds a lot of defects and throws reports via email or into ticketing system is it the end of tester’s job? Developers may reject them [defect reports]; sales people may urge with the release; PM may not realize severity of issues…

  

Bug fixing improves the quality. Bug finding without hunting them down until they’re fixed has zero business value. That’s useless (no profit, no saving and minus tester’s paycheck) gathering of information.

 

Testers should not and don’t have to be able forcing bug fixing through management or business power. They have other means to do it. Communication, first of all.

 

Not having power is not an excuse. It’s just stepping back from quality.

I don’t know what business would hire people interested in “gathering of information” only, and careless about product’s quality.

 

This semester a few of my classes have dealt with the way arts organizations and artists approach legitimacy. How they perceive legitimacy, what gives them that sense of legitimacy, how they achieve legitimacy. Its all really makes me think, what is legitimacy, what is validation? Why do we seek it out? Why do we seem need it so desperately?

I think that artists and art organizations have been so brow beaten into the belief they are  not valuable to the productive world. The idea that something doesn’t necessarily need a function to exist, to be a value. A painting on the wall that an artist spent hours, days, years on has equal value as a complex math problem.  The weight of aesthetics over function in value by society is really skewed.

A classmate always brings us back to the point that the government- who decides what we should learn in school- doesn’t educate the people in art, in art appreciation. I agree with this, but I also think that if society stressed the value of  art and artistic expression then people on their own would also gravitate to learning more about art on their own. Artists are often some of the most brilliant people, but they choose not to follow that path because of how society views it.

I think about how I felt that needed validation from my parents that my art  and my art degree was legitimate. They didn’t seemed to understand what I did or the art world I lived in. When I graduated from my undergrad I had my senior show opening my parents really got to see the results of what I’d  been doing for the past three and a half years. I think it meant the most to is when my father came up to me afterwards told me how he finally understood what I did. That really gave me a sense of legitimacy and validation that I had been missing.  After I felt I’d achieved this sense of validation, I wondered why my own achievements and  successes couldn’t be enough for me.

I don’t have the answer, just questions.

Here’s something extremely obscure!

A few years ago I spent a lot of time in Singapore and, as always, wanted to understand their system of vehicle registration places (license plates).

The basic system is easy to understand.Wikipedia has some basic documentation here.

Here’s an illustration from Wikipedia of a current private vehicle plate design (front and rear).

It’s British heritage is obvious but the Singapore Government made an enhancement that’s unusual. Almost every license plate (apart from military and diplomatic plates) has an alphabetic character at the end. It’s not a “year letter” like the old British system but a “check character”.

The check character is calculated from the values of the other characters in the plate and serves as a validator. If you make a mistake recording the plate the check character will be wrong.

As far as I know the Singapore Government does not document the check character generation algorithm for the public. I had a big database of Singapore license plates I’d observed and back in 2002 I tried to reverse-engineer the algorithm.

My mathematics isn’t the best so I got some help from somebody on the Internet. He quickly helped me understand the system and I wrote some Microsoft Visual Basic code to calculate check characters and to validate them.

I published a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with the code on my web site, but I closed it down in 2007 as an economy measure. When I discovered Scribd I decided to re-publish it as a service to anyone else who’s interested in the subject.

In the spirit of open-source I placed the code in the public domain under a GNU General Public License. I don’t know how many people are interested in this obscure subject but if you are, you’re welcome to the code.

After the break is an embedded form of the spreadsheet from Scribd. Don’t worry about the “VALUE” errors in the preview – Scribd rendered the preview incorrectly.

I am not a great Visual Basic coder so I’m sure many people can improve the code. I’ve tested it on hundreds of Singapore plates of all types including the new “SMB” bus plates and it works. But of course that isn’t a formal proof of correctness. As the license says – no warranty!

When I wrote the code I put lists of validated registration plates for the various classes of Singapore buses on the Singapore Buses Discussion Board on Yahoo Groups. They’re still there in the “Files” section over seven years later.

At the newsroom

In the aftermath of the Egypt-Algeria game in Sudan, and as we frantically were gathering information and contacts for our coverage, we also had to sit down and discuss the flood of information – or the lack of it at times.

Every TV show on Wednesday night had covered the ordeal of those who traveled to Sudan. Phone calls were pouring in from those frightened by attacks by Algerian fans and those who can’t get to or inside the airport. People we spoke to for our stories weren’t short of their own horror stories.

But it seemed to be only in Egypt’s mind, because on the other hand, the news agencies either ignored it or referred to it as minor incidents. By Friday morning I started doubting myself. There were two parallel worlds, one where people were traumatized and another where nothing of significance happened.

Pictures were only available of the game, but no photos on the wires of what happened afterwards. But as my friend — a person I trust who gave me a first hand account of his experience there — told me, “Our first reaction when attacked was not to take pictures, but to protect ourselves.”

He did send me photos of the shattered windows of their bus, which we ran in the paper.

But this led to some important questions: How accurate are the reports we are getting? How can we validate them? It’s not possible that thousands have agreed on one story, but are they exaggerating? Are we falling in the trap of sensationalization? Are we getting too caught up in the details that we are failing to see the bigger picture?

Seeing the media frenzy that followed was also worrying. The state-run official satellite station, El-Masreya, ran footage of the Thursday night demonstration. (For those of you who don’t know, for state TV and media, demos don’t happen). Many TV shows crossed the line (not a fine line) that separates coverage to outward agitation of the masses, some even calling for targeting Algerians in Egypt. It’s the same type of irresponsible media that fueled the masses in Algeria with false reports. (Mainly the death of Algerians during the game in Egypt, which the Algerian government denied. The denial didn’t find a place in some newspapers that had confirmed these alleged deaths.)

Alaa Mubarak speaking on TV (a rare occurrence for the media shy son), the initial tolerance for the protests near the Algerian embassy, and the liberty in which media was allowed to report on and fuel the anger were factors to consider.

After the initial story that ran in the Friday edition, we ran more stories the following day: more eyewitnesses’ accounts, the diplomatic relations between Egypt and Algeria, a story about Alaa Mubarak speaking on TV, and of course a story about the demonstrations that took place on Thursday and Friday.

But in doing so, we tried to be careful with the wording. Not sensational but not subdued either. Report it as is. Focus on the facts. I hope we didn’t mess up or miss a word here or there.

Objectivity, the first lesson any journalist learns, can sometimes seem like an elusive goal.

My take on the frenzy: When did Alaa become the hero?

After sending the paper to print and during the two days I took off, I had the chance to talk to more people, not about their experience in Sudan but about their reactions here in Cairo to the whole thing.

The most worrying realization was that many felt more humiliated by this incident than the numerous tragedies that have marred our recent history: from train accidents to the death of over 1,000 people over the course of few hours when their ferry sank in the Red Sea (and the subsequent escape of its owner).

I’m not trying to belittle the incident or what people have went through last week in Sudan. I don’t have the slightest doubt that this happened. Although it’s difficult to prove with material evidence, since people were running away from the attacks rather than clashing with the attackers, it’s still traumatizing for any person to be chased down the streets of a foreign city (or their hometown for that matter). Whether the Algerian government is complicit in this by intentionally allowing more violent fans to travel needs to be probed. Justice needs to be served. The failure of the Sudanese security to enforce order and protect its Egyptian visitors needs to addressed as well. We also need to revise the official response after the bus carrying the Algerian players was pelted by stones on their way from the airport.

But let’s put it all in perspective.

This incident is given more space, in state and private media, than other more tragic ones. Without scientific research, it’s easy to notice the difference between portraying the ordeal of the fans who returned and the ordeal of the families that spent nights (stress the ‘s’ here) in Red Sea towns waiting for news on the fate of their loved ones after the ferry sank in 2006. No masses were agitated on the scale we saw over the weekend. No actors or singers cried on live TV from the shock of it. No one felt humiliated when the case was referred to misdemeanor court or that the owner of the ferry was tried in absentia, because he left the country. Not in disguise but like any respectable citizen traveling abroad with the seal of government consent on his forehead.

Remember no people were chased down streets or had their buses pelted with stones then; they were merely left to die in freezing water and their corpses were left floating in open water, all 1,035 of them.

It’s only when the anger would be directed to an outside enemy is it allowed to be fueled and to mushroom. And not any enemy. People were beaten in Tahrir in March 2003 when they tried to march to the US embassy to protest the Iraq War. They were described as barbaric and accused of vandalism. Last week, the media and the ministry of interior (which usually takes days to issue a statement, that if they decided to acknowledge the existence of an incident) hailed the protest at the Algerian embassy that left a lot of shattered glass in Zamalek as “civilized.”

This has led many to the verge of hysteria and some willingly fell off that cliff. The hysteria I’m talking about here can be summarized in the willingness of many to attack any person just because he or she is Algerian. Someone, usually sane, told me over the weekend he would randomly attack any Algerian he sees in Cairo. What about XX, an Algerian friend? What if the man you are attacking has just spoken in your favor? What if it’s a woman? An old woman?

This hysteria won’t only have violent irreversible repercussions but has the ability of distracting people from the right ways to seek justice and also other important issues on the local front.

The idea that Egyptians are allowing many to cash in on their ordeal is equally worrying. Aside from celebrities, Alaa Mubarak’s phone interjection on TV has left me speechless.

Suddenly, the business-savvy son of the president who’s been in power for 28 years has become the hero. He’s angry, he wants to avenge the masses and like the rest of the Egyptians he feels humiliated. Suddenly, he is speaking against Egypt’s policy of political posturing, a policy that thrived during his father’s reign (except for selected enemies).

Alaa’s popularity is off the chart. The past 28 years and his other ‘business interjections’ were instantly forgiven and forever forgotten.

Sorry, but I draw the line here: When Alaa rises in popularity as hysteria reigns.

I so wish I had had a camera to capture the moment… I just came home from an excellent brunch at Pamelo, a small cozy place in Noe Valley. Accompanied by Fran and Zack.

Fran I know through four different connections. She showed up at my a cappella groups concert because she knew one of the singing group members, she came with a colleague of mine and recognized me from the Nia class. Most recently I met her when she was performing in a singing workshop that I also did a couple of years ago. The world is very small. Apropos spontaneity and singing – without getting to far out from the story line – the singing workshop we both did was led by jazz, R&B and soul singer Jesse Foster. The concept is very cool – you work with Jesse as a vocal coach in individual sessions and four Sunday afternoons in a row you perform with his band at  Rasselas Jazzclub on Fillmore in the jazz district together with other vocal students of his. Prepared in the sense that you have chosen and worked on the songs to sing, spontaneous in the sense that there is no practice with the band ahead of time. You just do it. And it is fun! So talented musicians, wonderful people, supportive audience. Safe. I can warmly recommend it!  (Check out the links if you are interested to step out of the shower singing stage and do the same!) Soon you will see Fran on the music scene in San Francisco.

Zack is a multi doer. I participated in one of his first Nia classes at Dance Mission when I was just about to move to San Francisco. The theme was “Transition” – how appropriate. Today he had another excellent class – the fact that he is also an actor and brings in that spontaneous playfulness in the room makes it a lot of fun. And so to the story… towards the end of the brunch today he suddenly reaches for the spoon in my cafe latte, takes his water glass, clinks the glass while standing up. The murmur in the room stops and he has full attention: “I just want to toast for spontaneity!” he says with a steady voice and a big smile and raises the glass. Facing the wall, I’m turning around and every face in the room cracks up to a big smile and a common toast, laughter and joy.  There are many ways you can show up in life. Such a small gesture – such a great impact.

The sense of joy created in the room reminded me of the sense of joy created by the movie Validation (below). Take a moment to watch it – get inspiration and share the beauty! Who can you make smile today?

Zack and Fran, you are awesome!
Cheers,

Johanna

WPFGluePublished.zip on the Downloads page contains an example project called SubmitCommandExample which demonstrates how to use a Sticky Command in order to submit validated user input from a group of data bound controls to the object they bind to. The command will only be enabled if the input passes validation, and invalid data will not be forwarded to the data object.

It is very very American and naive… but watch it and it will make your day!

The film length is 16 min, please watch till the end!

LOVE; axinia

The product sounds incredible. The executive team is all excited. This will be a major breakthrough – a paradigm shift like never seen before. Customers will just flock to the door and beg you to buy it. Who would be crazy enough not to buy this? Everything will just be amazing; stardom is around the corner… Sounds too familiar? Well maybe you suffer from the Kool-Aid syndrome.

The distortion field

It’s one thing to be excited about your business opportunity but if you are not realistic about the real value of what you are doing and what it really means for the market, you might be lined up for disappointment. Often, entrepreneurs are way too optimistic about their plans and forget to ask basic questions. This is what I call the distortion field or in a colorful way: “drinking too much of the Kool-Aid”.

Validate your insight

Your idea might be very good but unless customers and the media agree with you, it won’t realize as well as you’d envision it. You can never do too much customer and market validation. And when I say validation, I am not saying to convince them. Some entrepreneurs are very good at creating a temporary distortion field around them. Take the time to explain to potential customers and industry analyst what you are looking to do … BUT then listen to what they have to say. Every little objection they will have will matter.

Don’t talk, listen

This means that you try to give as much space to the customer so they can share their thoughts about your new product ideas.  This means you need to LISTEN. I know this is sometimes difficult since you’ve drunk so much Kool-Aid but you CAN DO IT. Customers and analysts will help you make sure your plans are valid and if you respond positively to their comments and update your plan accordingly, you will be successful.

If they don’t understand, it does not mean they’re stupid

Another effect of drinking the Kool-Aid is thinking that anyone that is not as excited or does not get it must be stupid or ignorant. Again, that’s the distortion field acting on you. No matter how smart you are, you need to find a way for the majority of the customer base and industry analysts to understand what you are doing. If you don’t, your plan won’t work out.

Going cold turkey

Yes, it is not easy but you need to become more pragmatic about things. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and you will feel much better about things. And even without the Kool-Aid, you can still get excited about what you do … just realistic about it.

219343     การทวนสอบและทดสอบซอฟต์แวร์     Software Validation and Verification

หลักการและเทคนิคเบื้องต้นเพื่อความมั่นใจในคุณภาพของผลิตภัณฑ์ซอฟต์แวร์การทดสอบอย่างเป็นระบบของระบบซอฟต์แวร์ การคาดคะเนและการวิเคราะห์ความเชื่อถือได้ของซอฟต์แวร์

(Principles and elementary techniques to ensure the quality of software product; systematic testing of software systems; prediction and analysis of software reliability.)

(219343 มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์)

After doing the 3-step anger process in Inner Bonding, we find out, often to our great surprise, that the anger we were sure was about something that someone else has done or said was actually a reflection of our own inner child’s anger at us for treating her the same way. Others, and our feelings about them, are just a mirror for us. Similarly, we are amazed to discover that what we don’t like about someone else reflects what a judgmental wounded part of us does not like about us. At some point, we come to realize that our reactions to other people are a powerful tool for growth, a mirror for our own inner life and we actually can become grateful for the gifts that they are. I remember, for example, when I was married being so focused on how disconnected my husband was from his little boy, how focused I was on trying to find a way to help him connect, clueless that this was a reflection of how I was treating my own little girl. The list goes on.
Last weekend, I had a revelation about the difference between validating myself for doing and validating myself for being. I was stunned to realize that although I am very good at validating myself for doing (really have made some progress there), I was not meeting my inner little girl’s deeper need to be actively validated for being. When I do something, in general, I am delighted in it. But validating my little girl for her qualities, for being who she is, something I was definitely not doing enough of.
I was sharing this with my ex-husband and he offered me this. When we look at other people, we not only see the things that we dislike but we also see qualities that we appreciate. What if the things that we appreciate are also mirrors for who we are, just as the things we do not appreciate are? I tried it on. There is a man who works for me who has a beautiful, caring heart, and I deeply appreciate his sweetness whenever I am with him. What if my appreciation of his sweetness was a reflection of my own? My little girl inside smiled.
I spend a lot of time appreciating the people around me. I delight in them. Thanks to Inner Bonding, loving people comes easily. I think now, using the mirror, I can complete the circle. Margaret recently wrote “The circle of giving and receiving love regenerates your energy. One without the other depletes your energy.” I know that this sounds like Inner Bonding 101, but now I understand in a much deeper way, that the circle of giving and receiving of love operates just as much on the inner level. That loving others for their essential qualities, seeing my qualities mirrored in them, can create a circle of love that comes straight back to my little girl, thru me, thru my loving adult. One of the translations of the word “Namaste” in Wikipedia is “All that is best and highest in me greets/salutes all that is best and highest in you.” It’s something like that.

Last week, I wrote a blog post “Five (5) Ways of How NOT to Run a Twitter Contest.” Today, I saw Smashing Magazine run a Twitter contest where they were giving away Google Wave invites. They posted a message on Twitter:

Win one of 25 Google Wave invites – to get one, just follow @smashingmag and retweet this msg! #smwave

Smashing Magazine and their Twitter Contest

So what’s wrong with running a contest this way? First, it’s a cheap way to gain followers, as I outlined in point #2 in my previous post. Second, Smashing Magazine was soliciting other users for their Google Wave invites. As one Twitter user (@DavidYell) pointed out, it appeared as though Smashing Magazine was “taking people’s google wave invites to get more follows.” While this may not necessarily be the case, the intentions of Smashing Magazine may certainly be misconstrued. And because there’s an invitation for speculation, I argue that it’s not a good way to run a Twitter contest.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. Here are 5 things you can do to run an effective (and fun!) contest on Twitter:

1) Ask for an Opinion. Do you realize that making people retweet a certain message is not only trite, but painfully boring? The propensity to run a contest this way is unoriginal. So what can you do instead? Focus on this word: engagement. For example, rather than make people retweet the same message, ask a question instead. For example, one thing that Smashing Magazine could have done is by asking readers to come up with an answer to this question: “Why do you want a Google Wave Invite? The most interesting or clever answer gets an invite!” When you’re asking a question or opinion, it allows Twitter users to come up with creative answers. And it’s so much more interesting to read through interesting responses than a barage of monotonous retweets.

2) The Trivia Contest. I think this idea has the most potential to interact with your audience. A simple approach would be to ask a trivia question on Twitter, and allow Twitter users to @reply with their answers. However, I think this approach can quickly lead to people scanning the Twitter search timeline and finding the correct results (and cheating isn’t fun; the cheaters will also dilute the whole purpose of the contest for others). So here’s a better way to engage with your audience. Ask the trivia question on Twitter, but motion users to reply with the answer on your blog. For example, a contest I held on Erudite Expressions could have been proposed on Twitter (example trivia question: Name the work in which Ernest Hemingway wrote “Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter’s honour;” the answer is here), with an invitation for users to respond with their answers on the blog post. If you think that people will be able to cheat by scanning comments left by other users, do this instead: ask users to leave a comment on a blog post of their choice which doesn’t contain the answer to the trivia question. If your blog doesn’t contain a timeline of recent comments (you could turn them off temporarily if you do have this feature enabled), it may lead to a great interactive experience (and your readers may find some other interesting content you have to offer in the process as well!). The contest winner would be chosen randomly from all submissions where the correct answer to the trivia contest was provided.

3) Hashtag Frenzy. The idea here is simple. Create a unique hashtag and allow people to incorporate it in any tweet of their choice. One company that ran with this idea was Moonfruit. Another company that went with this contest idea was SquareSpace. The upside potential is huge, as the contest may go viral. The contestants don’t have to retweet a boring message, they don’t have to follow you, and they can have fun in the process. The downside of this contest idea is that if it grows viral, it can lead to spam (i.e., spammers will start using this hashtag to promote themselves, their website, or their product). My only caveat for choosing to run a contest this way: don’t let contestants get multiple “entries” by using the hashtag multiple times (because it may upset other Twitter users and/or appear as spam-like). SquareSpace did a great job and realized about this issue about halfway into their contest, and they chose to make a disclaimer that using the hashtag multiple times would not increase your chances of winning).

4) Short Timeline (and Multiple Contests). If you’re running a Twitter contest, don’t make it last more than one week. For one, people could get bored waiting that long, and two, they might forget about the contest in the first place. This is definitely a personal choice, but a shorter time-frame allows you to better manage the influx of entries for your contest. Additionally, if you find that your contest has been successful, it opens up doors to run another contest in the future. If you can repeat the contest multiple times, it also allows you increased exposure, as people will try to enter a second time if they didn’t win. SquareSpace did exactly that: they picked a winner every 24 hours.

5) Validation of Results. I see too many Twitter contests in which the winners are chosen, but I have no idea what tools the organizers of the contest used to select the winner. If I enter a contest, I want to be certain that my submission did not go in vain. In other words, I want to see a validation of the contest. Check out sites like Tweetaways, TweetsWin, and Twtaway. If you’re running a contest where #hashtags are involved, check out these tools to help in your search:  CoTweet, PubliciTweet, TweetGrid, and Monitter. I personally don’t recommend using Twitter Search because it often is unreliable and/or doesn’t find tweets that are more than a few days old (but if your contest is short, as per #4 above, Twitter Search may be a good choice).

However, I want to bring the focus to what to do with the tracking. Whether you run a contest based on a trivia question, an invitation with the use of a hashtag, or something else, the validation process is critical. How do I know that I was entered into the contest? That my submission was both received and counted? This is where Random.org comes into play. From the site:

People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive games and gambling sites, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998…

Random.org insists that it relies on true randomness (based on atmospheric patterns), and you can read more about that here (it is a fascinating read). Why do I recommend using Random.org? Because it allows you (the contest organizer) to input all valid participants into their engine, which will output a random winner (it can select multiple winners as well, if your contest is structured that way). The most appealing part is that Random.org functions as a perfect validation tool: the participants can log in (to a unique website which will be generated by Random.org for you) and see if they were entered into the contest. The unique identifier could be the participant’s email address, their twitter handle, or whatever you choose. The best part? Random.org guarantees privacy because they will not reveal people’s email address or Twitter IDs. For the purposes of running a contest on Twitter, the optimal choice is the entrant-accessible drawing in which privacy is ensured and those who want to verify their entrance into the contest can easily do so. For more information, I highly recommend checking out this video which explains the entire process.

Conclusion

This was a follow-up post on things NOT to do when running a Twitter contest. I hope this post gives you some great ideas on what you can do to run a great contest on Twitter (i.e., don’t do what Smashing Magazine did!). If there is one element I would recommend above any other in advancing an effective contest on Twitter, it’s my insistence on relying on the validation tool, such as that offered by Random.org. Yes, it does cost $4.99 to use their service, but if you’re running a contest with hundreds or thousands of entries, it’s a small price to pay to ensure fairness.

If you have some other ideas on how to run an awesome contest on Twitter, feel free to chime in with your thoughts in the comments. And if you see other contests on Twitter where the organizers are making users retweet a boring message, please point them to this post.

_______

Other helpful resources:
1) The official Guidelines for Running a Contest on Twitter (note the policy on multiple tweets; my addendum is rule #2 here)
2) Five Helpful Tips for a Rockin’ Twitter Contest (hat tip for the apps that track hashtags)

[Book study - July 16, 2009]

The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse
(Third Edition, 1994)
by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis

Part Two: The Healing Process
A Stage of Healing: Remembering

[Table of Contents]

——————–

Green text: Quotes/Summaries from the book
Gray text: My words

This transformative work (the entire series of blog posts relating to this book) constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright law.

——————–

Writing Exercise: What Happened To You

Write about your experience of being sexually abused as a child.
(I’m choosing to instead write about historical events for which, still today, I carry shame and/or guilt. This includes, but is not limited to, sexual abuse.)

(My answer is continued from the previous post . . . .)

Over the past few days, I have been contemplating how to tackle this monumental task of documenting “what happened”.

I am sensing a shift in my mind, in my soul, in my spirit . . . even in my body to some extent.

Every part of me is preparing for a catharsis, a purging, a cleansing.

Photo by Martin Chen

I have been moving into a space of reverence – starting to remember who I was, who I am.

It is quiet inside of me – maybe even peaceful.

I have noticed my general demeanor shifting towards solemn ceremony.

I am experiencing a growing detachment towards “what happened”. I am ready to gently separate history from biological tissue. I am ready to respectfully separate antiquity from psychological energy. I am ready to open the curtains of my soul and welcome bold emotional expression and brazen physical movement into my life.

My hope is strong.

As a child, I was taught that my pain was not important – that I had no right to consider the possibility my experience might have an element of pain. I was taught to arrange my life around catering to the needs and pain of others, even to the detriment of my own well-being. I was taught to deny my own pain.

Now, as an adult, I recognize that I have never acknowledged the full extent of the pain I experienced. Even now, it is difficult to give myself permission to recognize it – to remember it – to name it. I feel shame, through the memory of my father’s voice, for laying claim to my right to do so. Maybe, through the process of remembering, I can set aside that shame as well.

I am beginning to recognize my need to have someone bear witness to my process of remembering. I don’t need someone to validate my memories (although that would be nice), but I do need someone to validate my remembering. I need another human being to say to me, “I hear what you are saying and I hear your pain – I hear you. What you are saying is important and you have the right to say it.”

By documenting history here, there is a chance my process of remembering will be validated by another human being.

By documenting history here, the extent of my healing will never be forgotten or minimized.

By documenting history here, I can make it something separate and apart from me – with it’s own path, it’s own journey, it’s own purpose. The separation and the distance will grant me the freedom to honor it, bless it and thank it – every single part of it.

[To be continued in an upcoming post . . .]

If I only had a dollar for every new product development project I’ve participated in that promised millions of dollar in sales and deliver almost nothing- I’d have 50 bucks or so.

I’ve worked with some exceptional marketing people over the years,  and many not so good, but even the best of them missed the mark many times. This is the hardest part of the new product process- determining how much of a product will be sold, particularly if it is truly a new product- one that no one has previously marketed. I’ve attended many focus groups and not found them to extrapolate well. That’s not really their purpose so I’m told. Surveys, prototype product trials with users, individual interviews with potential end-users- none of them has produced a close estimate. We always had a marketing profile(sales estimate, unit cost, gross margin, key customers, etc) and a product profile (key product attributes, package types and sizes, cost target, capital needed if any, etc), but we never defined resources needed after the project was done.

I don’t have the answers here but do have an opinion (go figure). You know people have use for the product, you know they like it and R&D delivered on the key attributes. There are, however,  a huge amount of post development issues that affect the sales outcome-the amount of money used to get product awareness, the sales incentive, spiffs, etc , etc. . This is where many new product marketing projects falter in small to medium size businesses, in my opinion.  Pepsi and Unilever may have the discipline and commitment to define all of these project parameters before launch, or even at project inception, but none of the businesses I’ve been involved with did.

How many projects have you been involved with that fail to define up front what resources they need to commit to a new product launch? Without them defined you’ve basically said they aren’t needed to hit the sales target. You will not get the same results with no market and sales support as you will with a million dollar launch program. I’ve tried in the past to get the marketing group to do this as part of the validation process, but with no success. I would be very interested on others views on what the most important part of new product validation process is.

What have you done to improve the process that most impacted a successful outcome?

In Information Systems on Thursday, we learned about validation in databases. Data validation allows you to control what values are entered into a field. We talked about the different types of validation checks and what they are used to do.

These validation checks are :

• PRESENCE CHECK – Does a field HAVE to have data entered?
• RESTRICTED CHOICE CHECK – Are there only certain acceptable                                                                             values?
• RANGE CHECK – Does the data have to be within a certain range?

Here is a link that will send you to a website with all the information on validation within databases. http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/theteacher/gcse/newgcse/module5/task10.htm

To ensure that you understood the details in this post, I have put in a link which will send you to a quiz on                                                                                             DATA VALIDATION AND  VERIFICATIONhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/schools/gcsebitesize/ict/quizengine?quiz=datavalidationverification;templateStyle=ict

By Cammy

Nice example of how even blog sites like WP have issues with W3 validation.  Click here to read.